With that one sentence, Ms. Linthicum disavows the one thing that separates America from the rest of the world – the United States is the only country with the notion of individual rights written into its core documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

She says "I don’t want to hear that it’s not guns that are the problem, people are." Well, she's going to, and not just from me, from what I see on the Journal's website. Because it's the truth. Inanimate objects such as guns, knives and baseball bats don't cause violent crime, as she alleges. That's like saying cars cause drunk driving.

Then she says she doesn't want to hear about how an armed teacher could have prevented the tragedy. Again, she doesn't want to hear the truth. She's got an agenda to promote and doesn't want anything to get in the way.

Fact is, Linthicum's pet cause of victim disarmament legislation has been a stagnant one since the year 2000. Twenty dead kids in a public school is just what she needed to bring it back to life.

Why hasn't she asked any questions about Adam Lanza's psychiatric state at the time of the tragedy? Was he doped up on Ritalin, Prozac or any other anti-depressant?

And about the shootings themselves:

Why is it that not many (if any) people shoot up private schools or religious schools like this? What makes the public schools so special in this regard?

Why is it that there's never any coverage of these sort of incidents happening with homeschooling families? After all, quite a few of those in the homeschooling movement are also supporters and exercisers of the right to own and carry weapons.

Why is it that these sorts of shootings never seem to happen at gun shows, at gun stores or at shooting ranges? After all, by Linthicum's brand of thinking, these are the places that they should happen the most at – lots of guns present, lots of ammo present.

Anyway, Linthicum wants us to put our inalienable Constitutional, civil, God-given human rights aside for her notion of "collective responsibility." Well, what happens when her side loses an election, and she becomes subordinate to someone else's notion of "collective responsibility" – a version that she doesn't particularly care for? Maybe then she'll learn to appreciate that "outdated" notion of individual rights?